1. The Defendant’s KRW 32,942,100 as well as 6% per annum from February 15, 2018 to September 6, 2019 to the Plaintiff.

1. The defendant, as a comprehensive construction company that runs the construction business, is a company that receives a contract for the new construction of D at Jeju, and the plaintiff is engaged in the manufacture and sale of stone.

On January 19, 2017, the Defendant entered into a contract with the Plaintiff to subcontract the tin construction work at KRW 616 million (hereinafter “original contract”) among the new construction works (hereinafter “original contract”), and on September 6, 2017, entered into a contract with the Plaintiff to subcontract the additional construction work at KRW 242 million (hereinafter “additional contract”).

After completing construction, the Plaintiff settled the construction cost of KRW 571,242,100 under the original contract with the Defendant.

As a result, the construction cost to be paid by the defendant was 813,242,100 won (242 million won).

The Plaintiff received KRW 7550 million from the Defendant’s trustee E company, and KRW 550 million from the Defendant on February 14, 2018.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 8, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Comprehensively taking account of the allegations and the facts alleged by the defendant that recognized the duty to pay the remainder of the construction works, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the remainder of the construction works (813,242,100 won - 750,500 won - 25,300,000 won) and the delay damages.

B. The Defendant’s assertion (1) The date of completion of the agreement under the original contract was completed on September 30, 2017, and the Plaintiff completed on March 26, 2018, and the 101,681,093 won for liquidated damages (0.1% of the contract amount for liquidated damages) was generated. The date of completion of the agreement under the additional contract was completed on September 30, 2017, and the 31st day was completed on October 30, 2018, and there was KRW 7,502,00 for liquidated damages (0.1% of the contract amount for liquidated damages). Accordingly, the Defendant’s remaining obligation for the construction payment and the Plaintiff’s obligation for liquidated damages were set off on an equal amount, rather, the Defendant’s claim that the Defendant should receive KRW 76,240,993 for liquidated damages.

However, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the delay is due to the plaintiff's mistake, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.